Iongi v The King

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 19/2025
[2025] NZSC 73

BETWEEN	MANU HORI IONGI Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Winkelmann CJ, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:	K E Hogan for Applicant T C T Riley and N E Walker for Respondent
Judgment:	3 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
BLeave to appeal is granted in part (Iongi v R [2024] NZCA 522).
CThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction.
DThe application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

An extension of time is necessary and is granted.
We give brief reasons for dismissing the application for leave to appeal against sentence. That proposed appeal is predicated on the failure of the conviction appeal. In particular, it assumes the applicant will fail to make out his contention that the jury verdict was unreasonable.
If the conviction is upheld, there would not appear to be room to argue, as the applicant does, that the Judge could not make the factual findings on which he assessed the applicant’s culpability and passed sentence.[1]
[1]R v Iongi [2024] NZHC 304 (Powell J) at [15] and [49]–[50]. See Sentencing Act 2002, s 24(1).
In these circumstances we do not consider that there is any prospect of a miscarriage of justice in circumstances where leave has been granted to appeal the applicant’s conviction.[2] The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
[2]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(b).

Solicitors:
Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Manukau for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand, comprising Winkelmann CJ, Kós, and Miller JJ, heard an application by Manu Hori Iongi for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against both his conviction and sentence. The appeal against conviction was already under consideration, and Iongi sought to challenge the sentence imposed on him should the conviction be upheld. The Crown opposed the application, arguing that there was no prospect of success for an appeal against sentence given the likelihood that the conviction would stand. The central legal issue before the Court was whether Iongi should be granted an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against his sentence, and if so, whether such an appeal should be permitted. The Court found that while an extension of time was necessary and appropriate, there was no prospect of success for an appeal against the sentence, as the outcome of the appeal against conviction would significantly impact the sentence appeal. The Court held that if the conviction appeal failed, it would not be open to Iongi to argue that the judge could not make the factual findings necessary for assessing his culpability and passing sentence.

The Court reasoned that the appeal against sentence was predicated on the failure of the conviction appeal. Specifically, Iongi's proposed appeal against sentence hinged on his ability to demonstrate that the jury's verdict was unreasonable. If the conviction were upheld, there would be no basis for arguing that the judge could not make the factual findings on which the sentence was based. The Court noted that the Sentencing Act 2002 required the judge to make specific factual findings to assess culpability and determine the sentence. Given that the conviction appeal was already under consideration, the Court concluded that there was no prospect of a miscarriage of justice if leave to appeal the sentence was not granted. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed, but the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction was granted, with the approved question being whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established